the Republic, Socrates argues that justice ought to be valued both for its own sake and for the sake of its consequences (358a1–3). His interlocutors Glaucon and Adeimantus have reported a number of arguments to the effect that the value of justice lies purely in the rewards and reputation that are the usual consequence of being seen to be just, and have asked Socrates to say what justice is and to show that justice is always intrinsically better than is acting contrary to justice when doing so would win you more non-moral goods. Glaucon presents these arguments as renewing Thrasymachus’ Book 1 position that justice is “another’s good” (358b–c, cf. 343c), which Thrasymachus had associated with the claim that the rulers in any constitution frame
Anish Yonjan Philosophy 1301-73426 Prof. Marcos Arandia Feb. 19, 2017 Explain and evaluate Socrates' claim in the Apology that "the unexamined life is not worth living for a human being," and briefly analyze and discuss the particular method he uses to discover the truth (i.e., dialectics or the Socratic Method), using at least two examples from Plato's Euthyphro and/or Apology. Do you agree that a human being cannot live a fully satisfying life if he or she remains ignorant, like the slavish prisoners in Plato's cave? Why or why not? In the Plato’s Apology, Socrates claims that the “unexamined life is not worth living for a human being”.
His statement brings up controversy, making the argument fail to back up its point. Socrates argues that a just soul and a just man will live well, and an unjust one badly. This argument consists of the following: 1. The function of each thing is what it alone can do or what it does better than anything else.
Socrates’ Arguments in the Crito In The Crito, Socrates argues that he should not escape prison because it would be morally incorrect. He says that the really important thing is not to live but to live well. Therefore, by escaping prison, not only will he suffer the consequences but also his family, his friends, and the city of Athens. Socrates argues that the city of Athens would be affected if he escapes from prison.
Equality can only think of himself, at the beginning
Plato claims that the soul is immortal because of his argument of Opposites, to which I agree. Socrates says, “For all things that come to be… [come] from their opposites if they have such...” and “…those that have an opposite must…come to be from their opposite and from nowhere else.” (70e) Socrates argues the opposites of Bigness and Smallness. For something to be considered big, it must have first been smaller, and for something to be considered small, it must have come from being big.
No matter which path death is, death is a gain. One will either be a peaceful sleep, or a journey to another world filled with intelligent people and knowledge. He had support to his theory, but only talked about conversing with people from the past. The apology is repetitive in the last two paragraphs because Socrates desired to talk to all these different people. He did not clarify as to why living on Earth was cruel and that death was the only answer.
However, the number three cannot ever be even for it holds a natural form of oddity that cannot be changed, the same is found with immortality. A soul cannot admit to death, which is the opposite of its essence immortality just as the number three cannot admit to being even. Leading to Plato’s conclusion of how a soul then must have to retreat, connecting back to Socrates believing death is best characterized by the soul separating from
In order to establish my thesis, I will start by stating and explaining the argument that Socrates presents, I will
“…if I disobeyed the oracle because I was afraid of death: then I should be fancying that I was wise when I was not wise. For this fear of death is indeed the pretence of wisdom, and not real wisdom, being the appearance of the unknown: since no one knows whether death, which they in their fear apprehend to be the greatest evil, may not be the greatest good” (Apology, 29a-29b). This potent statement not only highlights Socrates’ wisdom, it effectively makes use of his belief that he is wise because he knows nothing. By saying that he knows nothing of the afterlife, it gives him the reason to illustrate to his audience that he cannot fear what he does not know.
The discourse between Socrates and Euthyphro clearly depicts a dilemma when it comes to the question on holiness, moral goodness and the will of God. While Euthyphro is of the opinion that what is dear to the gods is holy, and what is not dear to them is unholy, (Indiana University 6) Socrates seems to be of a different opinion. This discourse occurs at a time when there is a belief in many gods in Greece, each god having different duties. The gods are also known to disagree on a number of issues. Socrates, in trying to counter Euthyphro’s idea he opines that since the gods disagree, they must have different concepts of what is ethical and what is not.
The Republic, by Plato provides us with four different definitions of justice which are given by the four characters Cephalus, Polemarchus, Thrasymachus, and Glaucon. According to Cephalus, the definition of justice includes the laws and repaying one’s creditors. Socrates doesnot agree to the idea that of repayment of creditors as always to be a good idea. The second person to define Justice was Polymarchus, the son of Cephalus. In his opinion, justice is defined as helping your friends and harming your rivals.
Socrates’ original argument was not valid or sound. The premises were corrected but the argument needed another premise to make the conclusion true. Adding premise two takes away any confusion there was to what immortality meant. Since Socrates’ spent almost the entire book creating a just person and a just city the information about what is good and bad for a soul makes sense. It also makes sense that those things cannot destroy the soul because injustice and other vices could only lead the body to make poor choices and possibly get sick or die from those poor choices.
Karim Fleifel Philosophy 210 First Paper To Do or To Suffer? In Gorgias, Socrates was having a conversation with Polus and through this dialogue Socrates reached to establishing a hierarchy of wrongs. Socrates classified that doing injustice is much worse than suffering injustice. Another idea Socrates states is that doing wrong act and escaping punishment is much worse than being punished on that act since punishment can remove the evil from a person’s soul. I am going to discuss these ideas as I think that doing injustice is not as bad as suffering injustice.
When it comes to justice, Polemarchus believes that justice is “…helping friends and harming enemies.”. Socrates questions this point of view because according to Polemarchus’ view point, only the people who are close to him and in his circle of friends would be worthy of any kind of Justice. Polemarchus is wrong in this viewpoint because if only the people that you know who are of your similar social status and you interact with on a day to day basis are considered friends, what of those that you do not know? Or what of those who are not of your social status, that you do not interact with? Socrates questions this by asking, “Do you mean by friends those who seem to be good to an individual, or those who are, even if they don't seem to be, and similar with enemies?”.
